Opinion
D082732
04-05-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL MONROE BROWN, Defendant and Appellant.
Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. SCD189835, Peter C. Deddeh, Judge. Dismissed.
Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CASTILLO, J.
In 2007, the court found Michael Monroe Brown not guilty by reason of insanity on multiple criminal counts, and he was committed to a state hospital. Brown now appeals from an order denying his application for outpatient placement pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.2.
On appeal, Brown's appointed counsel raises no arguable issues but asserts that the procedures in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) apply to this appeal. We offered Brown the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, and he has not done so.
Following our decision in People v. Sundberg (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 441, 443 (Sundberg), we conclude that the review required by Anders/Wende does not apply in this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
I.
The court found Brown not guilty by reason of insanity of three counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code § 187, subd. (a)) and two counts of animal cruelty (Pen. Code § 597, subd. (a)) in March 2007. As a result, he was committed to the Department of State Hospitals for three consecutive terms of life without the possibility of parole, plus determinate terms for the animal cruelty counts. In 2018, Brown was released on outpatient status. His outpatient status was revoked in 2019, and the court ordered his return to commitment in a state hospital.
In 2022, Brown filed a petition for outpatient status in a conditional release program under section 1026.2. The court held an evidentiary hearing in August 2023 and denied the petition, finding Brown had not met his burden to establish that he would not be a danger to others upon conditional release. (Pen. Code § 1026.2, subd. (e)) Brown appeals the court's order denying the petition.
II.
Brown's counsel filed a brief setting forth a statement of the case and facts, urging no grounds for reversal of the judgment, and requesting that this court independently review the record for error under Anders/Wende. Counsel attempted to distinguish this appeal, involving an indeterminate civil commitment, from Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C). Ben C. involved an appeal of the imposition of a conservatorship limited to one year, with the possibility of extension for additional one-year periods. (Id. at p. 540.) Our Supreme Court declined to extend Anders/Wende review there. (Id. at p. 543.)
In Sundberg, we concluded that an order denying a petition for outpatient placement pursuant to section 1026.2 is not subject to Anders/Wende review on appeal. (Sundberg, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 443 [applying Ben C. and following People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1435].) Counsel fails to suggest any basis for us to distinguish or revisit our decision in Sundberg, and we see none.
Brown was provided with a copy of counsel's brief and informed of his right to file a supplemental brief. Brown did not elect to do so.
Given the inapplicability of Anders /Wende and the absence of reasonably arguable issues raised by Brown or his counsel, we dismiss the appeal.
III.
The appeal is dismissed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. KELETY, J.